Dear Editor:
Your Jan. 19 editorial “Quite the cartoon” and Patrick Raftis’ coverage of Wellington Federation of Agriculture (WFA) chair Janet Harrop’s response to the county’s public meeting on proposed growth piqued my interest.
I agree with you, Janet Harrop, Jan Beveridge, and WFA vice president Barclay Nap in their recent letters to the editor. If we’re not careful, we could endanger our future food supply and increase homeowner and municipal debt.
We cannot waste farmland to achieve home ownership. At StatsCans’ current annual conversion rate of farmland to development, Ontario’s arable land will be gone in 100 years. Then what?
The pandemic, Ukraine war, climate change droughts and floods have proven we cannot rely on foreign food supplies. Our global food supply chain is unravelling as countries struggle to maintain their food stocks while competing for dwindling supplies, raising food prices. We are painting ourselves into a corner, assuming we can continue losing farmland and relying on others for our food.
The county’s proposed 15% urban intensification target to accommodate another 59,000 people is concerning. We need more compact neighbourhoods, relying on existing rather than new infrastructure. If you favour Milton’s sprawling growth, support 15%; otherwise, advocate for a 25% intensification target or higher to accommodate the 59,000 newcomers.
StatsCan says Canadian households are shrinking. Since 2011, one-person households have outnumbered couples with children. Increased divorce and separation rates, age, and life expectancy cause this trend. Ideally, we should build more apartments and condos to meet this demand. Instead, we continue building single-family homes in new subdivisions. Why?
Instead of building three- to five-storey apartments for practicality and affordability, we saddle homeowners with debt for a short-term mirage of prosperity and long-term liabilities to pursue the home ownership goal.
Municipalities increase infrastructure to serve new subdivisions and their tax revenue while acquiring more infrastructure to maintain and replace. This fast urban growth, scaled to the automobile rather than the individual, is a Ponzi scheme that delivers a short-term economic benefit in exchange for a long-term financial obligation that lacks funds for infrastructure upkeep.
Adopting a 15% intensification target maintains the illusion of wealth with sprawling subdivisions while increasing debt obligation. Alternatively, choosing a higher intensification target and building upon existing infrastructure at a compact scale allows us to reduce future debts while preserving farmland.
We have a choice: paint ourselves into a corner with 15% intensification or go with something higher that preserves farmland and our wallets.
Ian MacRae,
Elora